I’ve gone down a rabbit hole here.

I’ve been looking at lk99, the potential room temp superconductor, lately. Then I came across an AI chat and decided to test it. I then asked it to propose a room temp superconductor and it suggested (NdBaCaCuO)_7(SrCuO_2)_2 and a means of production which got me thinking. It’s just a system for looking at patterns and answering the question. I’m not saying this has made anything new, but it seems to me eventually a chat AI would be able to suggest a new material fairly easily.

Has AI actually discovered or invented anything outside of it’s own computer industry and how close are we to it doing stuff humans haven’t done before?

  • @Archpawn
    1•1 year ago

    Are AIs we have at our disposal able and allowed to self-improve on their own?

    Yes. That’s what training is. There’s systems for having them write their own training data. And ultimately, an AI that’s good enough at copying a human can write any text that human can. Humans can improve AI by writing code. So can an AI. Humans can improve AI by designing new microchips. So can an AI.

    These are of course tongue-in-cheek examples of what a human brain can, but - from the persepctive of neuroscience, psychology and a few adjacent fields of study - it is absolutely incorrect to say that AIs can do what a human brain can, because we’re still not sure how our brains work, and what they are capable of.

    We know they follow the laws of physics, which are turing complete. And we have pretty good reason to believe that their calculations aren’t reliant on quantum physics.

    Individual neurons are complicated, but there’s no reason to believe they exact way they’re complicated matters. They’re complicated because they have to be self-replicating and self-repairing.

    • Maharashtra
      1•1 year ago

      Yes. That’s what training is.

      I’m not talking about building a database of data harvested from external sources. I’m not talking about the designs they make.

      I’m asking whether AIs are able and allowed to modify THEIR OWN code.

      We know they follow the laws of physics, which are turing complete.

      Scientists are continuously baffled by the universe - very physical thing - and things they discover there. The point is that the knowledge that a thing follows certain specific laws does not give us the understanding of it and the mastery over it.

      We do not know the full extent of what our brains are capable of. We do not even know where “the full extent” may end. Therefore we can’t say that AIs are capable to do what our brains can, even if the underlying principle seem “basic” and “straightforward”.

      It’s like comparing a calculator to a supercomputer and claiming the former can do what the latter does, because “it’s all 0s and 1s, man”. 😉

      • @Archpawn
        1•1 year ago

        I’m asking whether AIs are able and allowed to modify THEIR OWN code.

        Yes. They can write code. Right now the don’t have a big enough context window to write anything very useful, but scale everything up enough and they could.

        Scientists are continuously baffled by the universe - very physical thing - and things they discover there. The point is that the knowledge that a thing follows certain specific laws does not give us the understanding of it and the mastery over it.

        And my point is that neural networks don’t require understanding of whatever they’re trained on. The reason I brought up that human brains are turing complete is just to show that an algorithm for human-level intelligence exists. Given that, a sufficiently powerful neural network would be able to find one.

        • Maharashtra
          1•1 year ago

          Yes. They can write code.

          You don’t seem to understand me, or are trying very hard to not understand me.

          I’ll try again, but if it fails, I’ll assume it’s “bring horse to the water” case.

          So: can AIs write their own code? As in “rewrite the code that is them”? Not write some small pieces of code, a small app, but can their write THEIR OWN code, the one that makes them run?

          And my point is that neural networks don’t require understanding of whatever they’re trained on.

          Your point does not address my argument.

          You can’t compare a thing to a thing you neither understand nor can predict its capabilities.